In my personal opinion, you do the crime, you do the time.
There are way too many errors in the system simply because every citizen, criminal or not, has civil rights. I think that some, maybe not all, of those rights should be revoked, depending on the crime. It isn't fair that evidence is inadmissible because it was illegally obtained. There should not be an illegal way to get evidence at all.
However, that does put a damper in privacy rights of innocent civilians. It would give police permission to search any and everywhere in a person's home with or without a warrant, allowing them to find all kinds of things that may or may not have anything to do with the crime. That can come back and bite the civilian in the rump, because they may find something that MIGHT be evidence, and they could get convicted on that alone.
The only way the exclusionary rule should not apply is when the police know absolutely for sure there is evidence somewhere that they need. If they are absolutely certain, there should be no legal limits on obtaining that vital piece of information that could make the difference whether or not justice is served. After all, if they are allowed to arrest people based on probable cause, they should be able to gather evidence under the same rule.